Republic of Ireland V Switzerland 25th March & Slovakia 29th March 2016 - Friendlies

[SkStu]

Would be a shame if this is accurate and he didn't make it. That said, fearing the worst, who might this open the door for do you think? Pilkington? Judge? On the basis of versatility?

[Fixer82]

I think Pilkington should definitely make the squad. A winger who can score or even play striker. Long and Walters do Murphy's job better than him. I like Murphy but feel Pilkngton is more mobile and skilful.

[DeLorean]

Philip Quinn has the exclusive in the Irish Daily Mail today that Walters faces up to eight weeks on the sidelines after it was discovered that a cartilage problem in his knee will likely require surgery, something that is far from ideal in terms of Martin O'Neill's plans for Euro 2016.That news has yet to be confirmed, but speaking to Newstalk Breakfast this morning, Quinn gave an update on the situation with Mark Hughes set to confirm later today whether or not Walters' situation is as bad as is now feared.

Walters withdrew from the recent squad to face Switzerland and Slovakia with what was initially diagnosed as tendonitis. It had been thought that he'd return for the second of those games but that proved to be wishful thinking and now it would appear that Walters trouble could be worse still.

If the operation is indeed needed then you'd have to think it's good news he's going under the knife now to give him sufficient time to recover in time for the trip to France. Having said that however, it's far from ideal situation if Walters can't play again for Stoke this season with those final two warm up games against the Netherlands and Belarus looking particularly crucial to ensure Walters is fighting fit ahead of the game against Sweden on June 13th.

We'll know a bit more later on I guess.

This is the link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3516682/Stoke-forward-Jonathan-Walters-fighting-fit-Euro-2016-Republic-Ireland-man-faces-season-ending-knee-surgery.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490) to the article (Warning: Daily Mail)

[DeLorean]

O'Neill versus Trap?

Ken Early (http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer/international/ken-early-o-neill-s-prudent-approach-reflects-poorly-on-trapattoni-1.2592792) had a crack at the comparisons as well.

Encouraging words from O'Neill about Hoolahan at the end also, I didn't know he was asked about it.

[Olé Olé]

With the midfield diamond it pretty much frees up the space to allow Brady and Coleman to bomb forward anyway. The only difference is that instead of having three centre backs, we have an extra midfielder to try to close off the space vacated by the attacking full back(s). I've found with teams that have used the wing back formation (three centre backs), it only works for so long. Celtic under O'Neill and Liverpool under Roy Evans both enjoyed initial success, but after a while the opposition seem to be able to pick holes in it. That said, I was eager for O'Neill to try it out with us as well, because I though it would suit our personnel, Coleman & Brady in particular, but I think he's come up with something better in this diamond shape. It allows us to get more of our best players on to the pitch and have a bit more solidity in midfield. Where do you see the potential advantages of a 5-3-2 (3-5-2)?

Only thing about playing the diamond and allowing the full-backs bomb on is that we looked a tad vulnerable on the counter on Tuesday night. That might have a lot to do with the fact that Whelan and McCarthy didn't have their best nights and 2 of the centre halves on show are unlikely to make the squad (McShane and Pearce).

You would hope that the lapse from Whelan won't happen again from him and that our first choice centre halves (two of O'Shea, Clark and Keogh at this point I think) won't read a situation like that as badly as McShane did for the first goal.

I think, otherwise, the diamond definitely suits us. 3-5-2 would sacrifices an extra body in midfield and any time we played the diamond during the tail-end of qualifying I thought it brought out the best in Hendrick and didn't limit Hoolahan's influence much.

If Walters isn't fit (which would be a bummer and I'm sure he'll be given every chance to prove his fitness and will be named in the squad once he can limp on for the Belarus match), then a diamond with McClean and Long up front would be pretty great. They'd be pretty relentless in their running and harrying. Would it be out of the question to suggest that they'd tire the opposition so much that Keane could come in and nick it for us?

Goals, as ever, are still an issue. We were fairly on top against Slovakia but they scored two from play and we scored two from pentalties.

[jbyrne]

if walters injury is cartilage related, as is being reported, it shouldn't be too serious. had a similar op last year and if I really wanted to I could have been back running a week or two later. hopefully the 8 weeks is an innacurate media assumption

[Olé Olé]

if walters injury is cartilage related, as is being reported, it shouldn't be too serious. had a similar op last year and if I really wanted to I could have been back running a week or two later. hopefully the 8 weeks is an innacurate media assumption

Yeah, the 8 weeks assertion is a lovely headline. Very convenient timeframe to rattle the confidence of a public that have placed a degree of reliance on Walters following his heroics against Bosnia. Further down the article in the Mail there's this paragraph:
"The FAI refused to comment on Walters’ fitness status last night but Sportsmail understands through sources in the Midlands that the rugged forward is likely to be out of action for an unspecified period."

[tetsujin1979]

Back in six weeks according to quotes in the Independent: http://www.independent.ie/sport/exclusive-jon-walters-insists-he-will-be-fit-for-euro-2016-despite-knee-injury-layoff-34587343.html

[jbyrne]

surprise surprise...
http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2016/0331/778507-euro-2016-fears-for-w/

the cartilage "operation" is more of a procedure really. in and out in a few hours

[Olé Olé]

Seriously like. What were Newstalk playing at on this? Are they not a reputable broadcaster? Entertaining some Mail scaremongering isn't the act of a reputable broadcaster.

Still, I'm sure there were a few extra rags sold this morning so all's well in the Mail.

[OwlsFan]

Darida mist play a lot then because Rakitic is a Croat :)

O'Neill versus Trap?

Both like solid systems and mistrust real creativity
Both like, in an ideal world, the wide positions to provide a threat
O'Neill trusts full backs to get further forward
Trap started with the ball more in the deck, finished with only hoofball
O'Neill started confused, seemed to prefer hoofball, then added more nuance and flexibility
O'Neill prefers to press without the ball, Trap preferred to stand off
Trap responded to accusations of not looking beyond core players by picking and persisting with strange choices
O'Neill, so far, seems to be serious about blooding new players at the right time even if his extended squads include some dinosaurs
ONeill got a great result at just the right time for him /us

I'll reserve final judgement until the Euros but I am happy that we have had both managers. As we all know, a manager is only as good as his last game and if we have a disastrous time in France, O'Neill will be crucified by the media.

[tetsujin1979]

I'll reserve final judgement until the Euros but I am happy that we have had both managers. As we all know, a manager is only as good as his last game and if we have a disastrous time in France, O'Neill will be crucified by the media.
well, yeah. If it's a disaster, he'll deserve it. Did you think he'd be praised by the media following a disaster?

[OwlsFan]

well, yeah. If it's a disaster, he'll deserve it. Did you think he'd be praised by the media following a disaster?

The point is that even though we've qualified and lots of nice things are being said at the moment, the three games in the Euros will determine his standing with the media. Praise no. Understanding yes, as it's another very tough group and ratings wise we should only come out with 3 points.

[Charlie Darwin]

Yeah, the 8 weeks assertion is a lovely headline. Very convenient timeframe to rattle the confidence of a public that have placed a degree of reliance on Walters following his heroics against Bosnia. Further down the article in the Mail there's this paragraph:
"The FAI refused to comment on Walters’ fitness status last night but Sportsmail understands through sources in the Midlands that the rugged forward is likely to be out of action for an unspecified period."

I hope they paid their sources handsomely for that enlightening information.

[geysir]

Darida mist play a lot then because Rakitic is a Croat :)
:o
Okay, i suppose it's too late to mention Modric


O'Neill versus Trap?

Both like solid systems and mistrust real creativity
Both like, in an ideal world, the wide positions to provide a threat
O'Neill trusts full backs to get further forward
Trap started with the ball more in the deck, finished with only hoofball
O'Neill started confused, seemed to prefer hoofball, then added more nuance and flexibility
O'Neill prefers to press without the ball, Trap preferred to stand off
Trap responded to accusations of not looking beyond core players by picking and persisting with strange choices
O'Neill, so far, seems to be serious about blooding new players at the right time even if his extended squads include some dinosaurs
ONeill got a great result at just the right time for him /us

For me, I'm not that interested to compare O'Neill to Trap, but just pass comment on what O'Neill does now.
O'Neill is still undecided, it's chronic with him and he vacillates.
Playing hoof ball against the Swiss was bizarre, what's the point of re examining that option at his late stage, when we have Judge and Hoolahan?
The performance in Hampden was just chaos against a moderately technical but organised team.
Can he be seriously considering that we will start a game with that same tactic in mind, against much better teams than Scotland, who we have to be defensively solid against and depend on counterattack?
How many even have full total confidence that we will start with Hoolahan v Sweden , in the same way that we have full total confidence he will start with Whelan and McCarthy?

[Stuttgart88]

As I said above, the Germany result changed everything. Poland afterwards was demoralising but both Bosnia games seemed to have earned him credits.

I'd be amazed if he hasn't learnt important lessons from thus week, an unusually enlightening pair of friendlies.

Anyway, I enjoyed this analysis:

http://www.the42.ie/diamond-formation-viable-option-ireland-analysis-2689192-Mar2016/

[AlanOB]

As I said above, the Germany result changed everything. Poland afterwards was demoralising but both Bosnia games seemed to have earned him credits.

I'd be amazed if he hasn't learnt important lessons from thus week, an unusually enlightening pair of friendlies.

Anyway, I enjoyed this analysis:

http://www.the42.ie/diamond-formation-viable-option-ireland-analysis-2689192-Mar2016/

That analysis is extremely flawed, to say the least.

For a start, Ireland have been favouring a diamond formation since the home fixture against Scotland in June. "Experimental"?

Secondly, that includes the home leg of the Bosnia playoff, in which the writer claims that O'Neill employed a 4-2-3-1.

I could go on.

[DeLorean]

I was thinking the same. The players selected for the B&H home leg and the Slovakia game were very similar when it came to their roles. I would have thought that a diamond was in place for the B&H home leg anyway although the players selected would easily suit a 4-2-3-1, but that wasn't really how they were set up. The major difference wasn't the formation, but the approach, we didn't press as high up the pitch or with as much aggression against B&H. The intensity of the pressing may have been slightly experimental against Slovakia, or it might have been just that we had players on the pitch that are better at it, most notably Long and McClean.

[AlanOB]

I think the latter, DeLorean, and I commented on it here:

http://tacticstruck2.com/2016/03/29/slovakia-stalemate-highlights-pros-and-cons-of-diamond-formation/

Good to know there are others out there that notice these nuances; makes me feel a little less like I'm wasting my time.

[Charlie Darwin]

I thought the same thing when I read it. Ireland haven't used the diamond exclusively but it's been in place since that Scotland game. Also saying we stuck with the 4-4-2 against Spain at the Euros I think is wrong - thought Cox was in a five-man midfield that day, and it was one of the reasons we looked so bad.

[AlanOB]

Correct.

Cox played as a ten that day and was a complete fish out of water.

Much like Keith Fahey when he was asked to play as an anchorman and mark Ozil once upon a time!

Ye should speak up if ye feel bull**** is being written lads.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Pretty sure McGeady was played in that position in a friendly once under Trapattoni, and it accomplished nothing.

[DeLorean]

Ye should speak up if ye feel bull**** is being written lads.

Ha ha! It certainly wasn't to spare anybody looking bad, you can't get away with much around here! Think I read it last thing at night and pretty much forgot about it. I'm sure it was written in good faith as opposed to a spoofing exercise. Formations can be interchangeable and not necessarily defined for ninety minutes, but I do agree with your take on it. One thing is for sure, the formation itself on Tuesday wasn't experimental.

[Charlie Darwin]

Pretty sure McGeady was played in that position in a friendly once under Trapattoni, and it accomplished nothing.
McCarthy played there against Uruguay once. Think it was in Thomond.

[Murph 1]

O Neill to be fair has shown a willingness to experiment and give players such as Hayes and O Kane a chance to impress, He also shows a capacity to learn from his mistakes which is refreshing. The only disappointments from the 2 most recent friendlies was (a) not giving Judge a second chance and(b) not giving Pilkington more game time as a Striker in 2nd game. Overall the Positives far outweigh the negatives.

[SkStu]

That analysis is extremely flawed, to say the least.

For a start, Ireland have been favouring a diamond formation since the home fixture against Scotland in June. "Experimental"?

Secondly, that includes the home leg of the Bosnia playoff, in which the writer claims that O'Neill employed a 4-2-3-1.

I could go on.

There's nothing wrong, in my opinion, with 99% of the article which focuses on the effectiveness of the diamond as it pertained to the friendly and the pros and cons of using it again. I found it interesting and informative and pretty accurate. To put emphasis on a couple of minor inaccuracies about when it started or previous experiments, which are really just footnotes to the article, is not really to do justice to the analysis itself.

The decision to go with a diamond formation certainly did raise some eyebrows both on here and in the media when it was announced so he is not the only "journalist/analyst" guilty of some of the critique in your post.

[AlanOB]

If the underlying narrative that supposedly justifies the piece is wrong, then any claim of 99% accuracy doesn't pass muster for me.

On a granular level, the analysis/word count ratio is pretty low. And blaming Christie for being out of position for Stoch's second half chance is just patently wrong. That's the position a full-back in a diamond takes up in the attacking phase; if the attack breaks down and a counter is instigated, it's up to the right-sided shuttler, holder or right-sided centre-back to cover. Such covering is what Ireland did poorly for both goals; McShane for the first, McCarthy for the second.

If indeed it did raise eyebrows - which I'm unconvinced of - being just as wrong as everyone else is not a positive. Some take the time to get it right before they attempt to speak with authority.

[SkStu]

As I said, I found it informative, interesting and pretty accurate.

[DeLorean]

To put emphasis on a couple of minor inaccuracies about when it started or previous experiments, which are really just footnotes to the article, is not really to do justice to the analysis itself.

Do you think there's a credibility question though when the writer didn't seem to understand that we've not only used that system before, but that it's become our preferred formation? The whole article was based around the so called 'experiment'. There were obviously some relevant points in there, it was a pretty long piece, but overall you'd have to question his actual understanding of what was taking place. His whole analysis is based on the pros and cons of this 'new' system.

[SkStu]

As I said, the fact that it was experimental was mentioned once. He doesn't use the word new. In fact, in the article, he used the words "revert to a diamond formation" which of course means "to go back" to something. Indeed, if I'm being a ***** about this, the very word experimental does not mean "new", it could easily just be interpreted as a departure from some other perceived norm. Many, many posters and pundits have referred to us playing a variation of a five man midfield formation in recent times.

Even not giving him the benefit of the doubt by way of the above, it doesn't really matter. The substance of the article was around the pros and cons of a diamond formation. As an article it stands alone on that basis. No credibility issues at all on that count.

[Stuttgart88]

These quotes from O'Neill and O'Shea suggest this was a "new" diamond:

He [O'Neill] was also pleased that, in the Slovakia draw, he was able to get the players accustomed to a new tactical approach in midfield - Glenn Whelan holding, James McCarthy and O'Kane on the sides and Wes Hoolahan floating.
"The players in that match might have got used to a type of diamond that we hadn't really done before. At least, we have to introduce it out there [at Euro 2016], the players will at least have some sort of [knowledge] of it."
John O'Shea explained some of the thought behind it, as he revealed O'Neill wanted them to be more proactive than in the 1-0 win over Switzerland.
"We wanted to be higher up the pitch in terms of pressing them a lot more than we did to Switzerland and you could see that especially and, obviously, keeping possession of the ball better too. Ultimately, over the two games we have not lost and there is a bit of positivity and momentum kept going."

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/european-championships/irish-news/mixed-messages-belie-oneills-confidence-in-his-future-34593677.html

[AlanOB]

Implying that a diamond has been used before; just not allied to a pro-active, pressing style when out of possession. Previously, it's been utilised more conservatively with one of the strikers (Walters) helping to defend the flanks and the full-backs given less licence to advance and provide the width

Hence, a new "type of diamond".

Here's a piece from Brian Kerr on how the previous interpretation of the system was inappropriate at home to Georgia:

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer/international/brian-kerr-midfield-diamond-makes-ireland-too-predictable-1.2343723

[SkStu]

Experimental maybe?



If indeed it did raise eyebrows - which I'm unconvinced of

As you can see from the Stutts quote, the formation raised some questions from the press so my perception there was correct.

[AlanOB]

Again, the formation wasn't experimental, which is the narrative that underpins the piece - with the writer failing to recognise that a diamond shape has been used in the past (as recently as in the Bosnia home game, in which he claims a 4-2-3-1 was fielded).

You're going to great lengths to defend this piece, which is a bit strange, but understandable I guess given that you originally linked to it.

Also, you mentioned the word "revert" in your previous post. It's obvious to me, given the sentence he used it in, that the writer meant to say "resort" but used the wrong word. Not the only error of that nature in a piece that purports to be more authoritative than it really is.

But look, you enjoyed it and that's your prerogative. We should probably leave it there rather than continue to argue in circles.

[SkStu]

I didn't link to it. Stuttgart88 did. I just think it was a good analysis of the pros and cons of using a diamond. I didn't even read it as a piece that celebrated a new formation until you made that connection. And I still don't see that as being the focus.

You are resorting now to making up words that the author probably meant as opposed to the words he actually used in order to support your argument. That's a bit silly.

[SkStu]

But yes, let's leave it there!

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Anyone else read AlanOB's comments in Frasier Crane's voice?

[Charlie Darwin]

Jesus lads. Have a cold shower or something.

[SkStu]

What? We're not allowed to respectfully debate our minor differences of opinion on here now?

[paul_oshea]

No CD just likes cold showers with other men. So he thought that you two would enjoy it also.

I am confused by all of the comments. As I think all of you are without realising. The diamond formation was made up for/of 4 midfielders, Breen demonstrated this well on sellotanta/premier. McClean and Long played off this. We played a 4-4-2, with a diamond, no 1-2-3-2-1 or anything like that. What it would have left us open to was the counter attack - it did - and also balls in over the diamond or through balls, I dont think Slovakia were astute enough or perhaps just not technically good enough to play this game, but they were very fast so used the counter attack well.

I think AlanOb is just trying to promote his own article over the others, but that got lost in his debating posts. And/Or perhaps he doesnt like the author - previous I think CD and SVD call it.

[DeLorean]

How can you "revert" to an experiment? The only way that would make sense is if he's implying that we've been experimenting since the Scotland game. He's not though, because he clearly didn't realise we've been using the diamond since then. I take Stu's point that discussing the pros and cons of the diamond might still have some value, but he was only observing how it worked out on the night, with no real insight to how it worked previously, which was much more impressive from a defensive point of view. I don't think the writer's lack of understanding in relation to the fact that we've used this system before, regularly, should be viewed as a "minor inaccuracy", I think it's crucial to what he's discussing.

Totally agree with Stu in relation to this discussion generally, it's just a conflict of opinion, that's allowed. I find it interesting actually and although I obviously have an opposing view, Stu and Stutts have made a strong defence of the piece and showed me a different way of looking at it. I still don't really agree but how bad.

Paul, what's your point is saying that the diamond formation is basically a 4-4-2 with a midfield diamond? I presume everybody is aware of that already. One can call that formation a 4-1-2-1-2 if they wish and it wouldn't be inaccurate. Also, whether Alan is trying to promote his own article or not is irrelevant, the topic is there to be discussed and it was Stutts that brought our attention to it anyway.

[Stuttgart88]

I actually haven't even tried to defend the piece. I've a completely open mind. But when I read MON and JOS saying it was essentially new I felt it only right to post it.

[DeLorean]

Yeah, but a new approach maybe, not a new system. That's what I was (trying to) say in my first comment on the subject.

[Stuttgart88]

Much ado about nothing!

[DeLorean]

It's a discussion about an article you linked, obviously the people that have commented think the (alleged) innacurries were worth pointing out. Others felt the article was worth defending or praising. Pretty standard football forum stuff I would have thought.

I did like the way he complemented Long on his first touch for the Germany goal. I've actually read somewhere that it was a clumsy first touch that worked out well for him. I think it was Balls.ie. Nuff said I suppose!

[Stuttgart88]

Long's first touch was a brilliant piece of improvisation.

And it's complimented :)

[paul_oshea]

Unless he meant long was getting desert? I think Coleman is our best player on controlling the ball, and i take that from him soloing at speed in Gaelic. He did it again at the weekend. BUt he was brutal for the goal and then tried to blame Stones.

Deloresan - I am not saying there is anything wrong, but people on here were writing about this formation and I fundamentally believe it was wrong. Diamond usually has people thinking its a lone forward and the head of the diamond(technically a diamond has much more than 4 sides, but thats another story :) ) is the extra midfielder/number 10/auxilliary forward. BUt we didnt play that, we played the midfielders all playing in the diamond and "moving/roving" in the shape of a diamond and switching around but keeping the diamond shape. The strikers played off that. So your 1-2-1-2 is the most accurate but I saw previously people mentioning the 5 combination in midfield and its interchangeable numbers - which was wrong.

[AlanOB]

I did like the way he complemented Long on his first touch for the Germany goal. I've actually read somewhere that it was a clumsy first touch that worked out well for him. I think it was Balls.ie. Nuff said I suppose!

As I did in my brilliantly written article that everyone should read and I'm in no way promoting......

....Niles. :D

[DeLorean]

Bump.

[DeLorean]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Oq9uTmc7pQ